Shane wrote:I liked the re-make of Lolita more than Kubricks original.

damn shame.
dominique swain is hot, and jeremy irons a master craftsman. but lyne's lolita is cold and distant, and irons is just a creepy pedophile. where as kubrick's is warm and charming, yet intense and honest and works on more levels than lyne's. also, i feel kubricks is more true to the spirit of the book. while how far kubrick could go in his depiction of sex between lo and prof. humbert was limited by the standards of the day, that was irrelevant, as we all know what the fuck is going on. i dont know that if SK shot this bitch today that he would have done it any differently. kubricks lolita is a masterpiece. lyne's was merely controversial.

esbern wrote:The opening scene in Clockwork Orange is the best thing kubrick has ever done. The music, the mood, the lighting, the poses. Oh and the narration. Oh thats narration is amazing.

thats an awfully bold statement. sort of undermines the gravity of the rest of his work. not that that scene isnt well done, but the finality of saying this scene is the greatest thing he ever did. well, i could never narrow it down that easily.

eh? i'm not undermining the rest of his work in any way. there is nothing wrong with having a favorite part of a book, song, catalogue, etc. while still being able to appreciate all aspects of something.

Notice how Tom wants to sove everything with money. Notice how Nicole just wants to look pretty. Notice their daughter. Especially in the final scene in the warehouse, during a "Christmas" sale. Pimping the bitch.

Octaveaeon wrote:What you should all be reading is the "Golden Bough"..Or "The Destruction of the European Jews"...Amongst some.I mean.If you listen to "Herr".Herr Friend.Do you all really want to understand Kubrick?Well then how about starting by undressing yourselves. Kubrick wasn't all that. His intelligence was limited.But his art transcended all our wildest expectations.Do you understand what 'art' is about?Fuck you.My dog just choked on itself.I'm lucky I didn't.Welcome to the next.EWS is about prostitution. HaHA HI HINotice how Tom wants to sove everything with money. Notice how Nicole just wants to look pretty. Notice their daughter. Especially in the final scene in the warehouse, during a "Christmas" sale. Pimping the bitch.Look beyond what "Christmas" represents, particularly in mystical traditions.. beyond the Eleusinian mysteries.Trust me. If you think you've got Kubrick figured out, then you are an idiot.Don't be ashamed.That's life.K.

Good magic never reveals its secrets. And an honest person never pretends to know them. It's that tension that drives us, in a pseudo-Hegelian sort of way Iâ€™d say (pardon my French, and bs). If I gave the wrong impression, then forgive me. I'll blame the booze, if you don't mind (softer on the ego). Laying off the sauce for sure now, if it means insulting anonymous AICNers anonymously from my anonymous hide-out in New York's nom d'origine.

EWS is more than just about prostitution. Or secret-societies and wannabe mystery-cults.

But one thing is for sure. Kubrick was about more than just a 'director', and his work was more than just 'movies' or 'art', but no one here would disagree with that, so nevermind. I'll continue to ponder on this by myself now...

Btw, ever hear of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili?

You already know Traumnovelle.

1499-1999: That's 500 years between dreams. Freud-Jung (I think K. leaned more towards Jung, and the power of myth, hence him trying to get people to read The Golden Bough). Psychology-Architecture. Cupid and Psyche (statue in Ziegler's house when Harfords are greeted) and Venus. Golden Ass. Hmmm...

Destruction of the Jews part II. Classic. EWS should have been a comedy after all...

Or he should have lived long enough to direct the Dune Chronicles. After all, Herbert was apparently also a big fan of the Golden Bough. After seeing Jackson's LOTR make it to the screen and the demise of the Star Wars saga, I'm sure he could have been arm twisted in that direction...

Not.

Ah, God bless his good-natured soul.

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
-- George Washington

On another note, saw King Kong today. Man, I haven't been reduced to such an emotional state in ages... Heart of Darkness indeed... (did I sense a slight critique on Jackson's part on the role of movies, directors, and audiences for vulgarising beauty for the sake of wanton entertainment? In the end, who is the beast that Denham is referring to? I get the feeling that the reason this Denham turns out to be such an asshole (compared to the original) is because heâ€™s meant to represent the savage, egotistical, and ignorant, drive lying beneath the 'smiles' the so-called â€˜powerfulâ€™ hide behind. Still, with the fall of the ape, love (and humanity) is exulted, while below the 'heart of darkness' remains... as do beauty (Truth) and the beast (Void)).

Then again this could just be a movie about an ape going ape-shit instead of a retelling of the Titanicâ€¦ (heart of darkness/heart of the ocean, kong/jack (including similar death scenes), rose/ann, Denham/Hockley, the role of hubris, ships hitting rocks, etc. etcâ€¦)

Euhhâ€¦. Just kidding. I think.

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
-- George Washington

Ben Garman wrote:Legendary actor Robert Duvall has condemned “the great Stanley Kubrick” as an “actors enemy”. The fiery exclamation came during a round table interview with THR after it was revealed that director David Fincher frequently took around fifty takes to get the perfect shot whilst filming The Social Network. Fellow interviewees Mark Ruffalo and Jesse Eisenberg laugh (perhaps with disdain?) as Duvall compares Fincher to Kubrick. No doubt a comparison like that would normally be considered flattering, but Duvall continued, dismissing the performances in such classics as The Shining and A Clockwork Orange as “the worst performances I’ve ever seen in movies”.

Ben Garman wrote:Legendary actor Robert Duvall has condemned “the great Stanley Kubrick” as an “actors enemy”. The fiery exclamation came during a round table interview with THR after it was revealed that director David Fincher frequently took around fifty takes to get the perfect shot whilst filming The Social Network. Fellow interviewees Mark Ruffalo and Jesse Eisenberg laugh (perhaps with disdain?) as Duvall compares Fincher to Kubrick. No doubt a comparison like that would normally be considered flattering, but Duvall continued, dismissing the performances in such classics as The Shining and A Clockwork Orange as “the worst performances I’ve ever seen in movies”.

Kubrick (and some others like Ridley Scott) once said that he often shot that many takes because it meant the actors got bored, stopped performing so "leading man" and gave a better acting performance.

I've seen both The Shining and A Clockwork Orange, and those performances are good. Duvall seems to have some private grudge against Kubrick or his methods. For Duvall to state that these are the worst performances he's ever seen says more about Duvall than about Kubrick. I think Duvall is a good actor, but I don't like where his brain has wound up.

minstrel wrote:I've seen both The Shining and A Clockwork Orange, and those performances are good. Duvall seems to have some private grudge against Kubrick or his methods. For Duvall to state that these are the worst performances he's ever seen says more about Duvall than about Kubrick. I think Duvall is a good actor, but I don't like where his brain has wound up.

senility?

my take on it really is that duvall comes from a school of acting that is very naturalistic. whereas the performances, in those films in particular, are much more mannered and theatrical. duvall probably doesn't like the performances because they're radically different from his own acting style, but i think he's wrong to say that they're terrible. they're just very different from what he does.

Yeah I pretty much agree with Baxter here. The thing about Kubrick films (and to a much lesser extent, Nolan for example) is that the emphasis of the art isn't on the standard psychologically realistic characters but more on the form of cinema, plot, metaphor etc etc and so he often gets criticised unduly.

Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.

I love all of Kubrick's films, but Lolita and Barry Lyndon tie as my favorites, followed closely by 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining. Speaking of The Shining, I found an interesting article discussing the influence of David Lynch's Eraserhead on The Shining. It's interesting that Lynch and Kubrick helped inspire one another's work.

minstrel wrote:I want to see the footage, but I don't want to see it cut into the movie. Just put out a new Blu-Ray edition that has the new footage as a bonus feature.

And I'll stay awake. I generally do for Kubrick.

If only her was still around to do a director's cut. Just think of ALL the CGI he could squeeze in. Oh man, he could invite Lucas round as his personal mentor to really help put a jazzy new spin on his flicks.

If this footage was cut in through seamless branching I could abide, but ultimately I'd rather see more material from The Shining or Eyes Wide Shut, and indeed Full Metal Jacket, which are all movies that IMO could benefit from bumper cuts.

It all depends on what audience you are aiming your flick at, perhaps in teh future, films will be shot, the rushes distributed and YOU MAKE YOUR OWN EDIT. Too badass.

Spandau Belly wrote:How about they edit this stuff into a director's cut of A.I.?

i'd rather they edit some A.I. footage into 2001. how about a bunch of robot-aliens from the future rescue the Starchild from the bottom of the ocean and give him a make-believe mommy to live with forever and ever, happily ever after, the end.

“The additional footage from 2001: A Space Odyssey has always existed in the Warner vaults. When [director Stanley] Kubrick trimmed the 17 minutes from 2001 after the NY premiere, he made it clear the shortened version was his final edit. The film is as he wanted it to be presented and preserved and Warner Home Video has no plans to expand or revise Mr. Kubrick’s vision.”

Don Kaye wrote:In honor of what would have been director Stanley Kubrick's 83rd birthday on this date, we reveal what might have been the real reason HAL 9000 sang "Daisy Bell" in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Remember how in Kubrick's 1968 visionary science fiction masterpiece, astronaut Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) is forced to shut the supercomputer HAL 9000 down after it malfunctions and kills the rest of the crew on their Jupiter-bound spacecraft? Well, as Bowman unplugs HAL's connections one by one, the machine sort of has a flashback to its very first day of operation, when it demonstrated its abilities by singing a song.

The song? "Daisy Bell," written in 1892 by Harry Dacre. But where did Kubrick get the idea to use that particular tune?

It turns out that in 1961, the IBM 7094, among the earliest and largest mainframe machines developed by the computing giant, became the first computer to sing, and the tune it warbled was—you guessed it—"Daisy Bell." The vocals were programmed by John Kelly and Carol Lockbaum, while the musical accompaniment was programmed by Max Mathews. It seems certain that Kubrick used this as the inspiration for HAL's signoff in his movie.

A recording of the IBM 7094's rendition is below. We think HAL's got a smoother voice, but the 7094's performance was more historic by far.